Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/Latest.asp?I1=ID&I2=3883" target="_blank"><b>Latest: New Sanaa Indian menu offensive?</b></a> <p>Restaurant critic Scott Joseph has posted menus for Sanaa, Disney's Indian restaurant tha will be opening at the Animal Kingdom Lodge on May 1st. He also has some comentary on what he sees. An excerpt...</p> <p style="padding-left: 30px;"><i>True, I haven't tasted the food yet, so perhaps there is a chance for authentic seasonings. So what makes me think that won't happen? The lunch menu has beef short ribs, grilled angus chuck burger and grilled pork chop. On the dinner menu there's also a New York strip.</i></p> <p style="padding-left: 30px;"><i>Most Indians are either Hindu or Muslim. Cows are, of course, sacred to Hindus. And to Muslims, pigs are considered to be unclean animals and should not be eaten. At least the Culinears at Disney chose to offend both dominant sects.</i></p> <p><a target="_blank" href="http://www.scottjosephorlando.com/food_drink_other_stuff/2009/04/sanaa-indian-restaurant-a-first-look-at-the-menu.html">Click here</a> for more from him including the complete menus in PDF format.</p>
Originally Posted By Mr X Well what the heck are they supposed to serve then? Chicken? Is anyone offended by chicken?? Show of hands!!!!???? (personally, I find the serving of fish to be highly offensive! (cause I hate fish)...no fish may be served! how dare they!!??)
Originally Posted By Mr X Scott Joseph is a moron. That much is obvious (before he even tastes anything). Go find some enclave or something, ya freak!
Originally Posted By DlandDug I suppose he would have a valid point if traditional Indian restaurants did not offer beef or pork items. Is this the case? A follow up-- is Sanaa intended to represent authentic Indian cuisine? If so, are these meats truly offensive? Or just inappropriate?
Originally Posted By itsme The word sanaa is also used in Swahili. The menu says "the art of African cooking with Indian Flavors" and Disney's own website about it says that it serves African cuisine. So who says that it is a authentic "Indian" restaurant?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>The menu says "the art of African cooking with Indian Flavors" and Disney's own website about it says that it serves African cuisine.<< Hmm. Scott Joseph could write a travel blog for the LA Times...!
Originally Posted By alexbook >>The menu says "the art of African cooking with Indian Flavors" and Disney's own website about it says that it serves African cuisine.<< It could be authentically African and offensive to Indians at the same time.
Originally Posted By MPierce When they said it was authenic Indian food I thought they were going to serve American Bison, and maze.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 I think highly of Scott and have been reading him for years. I think he made some valid points. Indian cuisine most certainly doesn't include beef or pork. And you could make an Indian resturant at WDW that did likewise ... of course when all the DVCers show up looking for their American comfort food (and shouldn't EVERY restaurant have a burger on the menu for people who never grew up?) a problem develops. I do think Disney was cognizant of the fact it was going against Indian cuisine and that's why the locale is advertised as African cooking with Indian flavors. They feel they're covering their asses that way. They are. But Scott brings up a fair and logical criticism of the place. And let me toss out a bizarre thought, but if this were 1982 and EPCOT was debuting an Indian pavilion, I'll guarantee you that any restaurant would not have beef or pork dishes. ~You mean they don't have chicken fingers at the California Grill??!?! Where's the (bleeping) manager!??!?!~
Originally Posted By alexbook Looking at the menu, I'm confused about the "African" label. Which of the many African cultures is Sanaa supposed to represent?
Originally Posted By Caolon Saying that there are no recipes involving beef or pork in Indian culinary tradition is far too simplistic and offers a very narrow view of Indian food. While the vast majority of Indians do tend to abstain from meat, the culture's contact with the English and Portuguese (as well as their own genius) has created a wide variety of beef, pork, lamb, chicken, fish, and vegetarian dishes for the numerous ethnicities, religions, and cultures inhabiting India. Though, I admit that Disney’s rational behind their meatier menu may also have to do somewhat with an understanding of Western tastes. If anything were to surprise this reviewer, it would be the lack of Tikka Masala or Vindaloo, which are generally staples on any Indian related menu. On some level, I applaud Disney for taking a road towards a menu that does not mirror the one at my local Star of India (standard buffet style Indian restaurant) and instead going the route of the fusion menu in which they can continue to further develop, enhance, and explore the Indian culinary tradition.
Originally Posted By Mr X What an awesome first post, Caolon! Welcome to laughingplace. I hope you write early and often, I'm interested to hear more of your point of view!
Originally Posted By DlandDug Yes, Caolon, thanks for the cogent and relevant post. Do you think (asking opinions here) that it makes sense to bill a restaurant as both African and Indian? And would there be any offense?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Hmm. Scott Joseph could write a travel blog for the LA Times...!<< LOL!
Originally Posted By MPierce They probably don't want the Tikka Masala to compete against the local chicken nuggets, and they probably feel the Vindaloo is much to spicy for the every day park goers taste. Remember they don't really want the guest to get an authentic taste of Indian cuisine, they much prefer to serve dishes that Americans like, and call them Indian. Perhaps on request the restaurant will add the real spices to the food. Perhaps I am to harsh on dining at WDW or perhaps I have learned from past experience.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>Remember they don't really want the guest to get an authentic taste of Indian cuisine, they much prefer to serve dishes that Americans like, and call them Indian.<< Go back and look again. It's not billed as Indian cuisine. It's billed as "African cooking with an Indian flavor," which could mean just about anything. The article describes it as an "Indian restaurant," but Disney doesn't.
Originally Posted By MPierce Yes, but Africa has a large Indian population. I consider by Indian flavor they mean something comparable to the differences between Mexican, and Tex-Mex food.
Originally Posted By Caolon Thank you for your kind and encouraging words. I agree that evaluating the restaurant should include the caveat that the restaurant is Indian inspired and I agree with MPierce that WDW's new restaurant shouldn't be considered African (also a rather broad classification) or Indian, but just as they classify it. I don't think this qualifies as offensive, in any case, though I'm not from within the culture, so I really can't say.
